Draft:Madison's Lumber Reporter
Periodical publisher / From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Madison's Lumber Reporter is a Canadian-based weekly forest industry products guide providing softwood lumber commodity price information.
The publication[1] was established in 1952 by Peter Madison, in Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Madison's Lumber Reporter focuses on tracking the current market trends of North American home building and construction framing softwood lumber and panel prices. The periodical publishes its reports for 50 weeks out of the year.
Submission rejected on 18 April 2024 by Xkalponik (talk). This submission is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. Rejected by Xkalponik 2 months ago. Last edited by Xoak 2 months ago. | ![]() |
Submission declined on 22 September 2023 by Ca (talk). Declined by Ca 9 months ago. | ![]() |
Submission declined on 20 September 2022 by Greenman (talk). This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources. This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject. Declined by Greenman 21 months ago. | ![]() |
Submission declined on 2 July 2022 by Stuartyeates (talk). This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are: Declined by Stuartyeates 2 years ago.
| ![]() |
Comment: Despite 3 previous comments from reviewers while declining it urged to introduce sources to sections/statements that were uncited, the creator hadn't complied. Given that the user has already declared a COI, this draft warranted a thorough evaluation, and each reviewer was unsatisfied with the sourcing, quality, depth, and also lack of them. Despite multiple instructions on introducing sources, the creator just kept re-submitted without obliging.Moreover, the sources inserted are mostly passing mentions, no in-depth analysis of the company whatsoever is noticeable on the internet even via my own research. In some rare instances, a publication can be considered notable if it is cited/mentioned by reputable pubs substantially/regularly. Which is also not the case here.Given the sensitivity of this draft, a reject was imminent from the start if instructions weren't followed. X (talk) 15:00, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
Comment: The listed sources do not talk about the company in an in-depth fashion. They only cite the publication, with no other context given about this publication. I removed some sources that does not even mention this company. Please cite independent sources for the history sections and unsourced claims. Ca talk to me! 13:10, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
Comment: Unsourced statements need to be sourced or removed. Greenman (talk) 17:19, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Comment: None of the source provided (except the ISSN database entry) appear to actually mention the publication. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:43, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- in-depth (not just brief mentions about the subject or routine announcements)
- reliable
- secondary
- strictly independent of the subject
Make sure you add references that meet all four of these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.